Hacker News Reader

Comment by haven | Hacker News Reader

OpenOffice isn't the OpenOffice you used to know (just a fork of LibreOffice with Oracle's TMed name). If I recall, Oracle just handed it off to the Apache Foundation after losing developer support and being dropped by prominent linux distros. Oracle called LibreOffice a fork, but that is nonsense since it is the original maintainers and code with only a new name. I'm actually curious why Apache Foundation took on OpenOffice following Oracle's misteps and what the rationale is for its existence alongside LibreOffice. (There is one, right?) To be fair, I haven't used them side by side or followed OpenOffice since the Oracle debacle.

TL;DR: Oracle forked OpenOffice and kept the name. Long live LibreOffice!

In other news, LibreOffice 4 has been released: https://www.libreoffice.org

View on HN

The accepted definition of a software fork is a copy of an existing project that is independently developed.

Therefore, LibreOffice is a fork:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)

It doesn't matter which people do or do not work on the project at this point. The original owners of OpenOffice donated the project to the Apache foundation (under less restrictive licensing terms I might add).

So at this point, it doesn't matter what happened to the project in the past, OpenOffice is now an Apache project owned by the Apache foundation.

TL;DR: The OpenOffice project (now part of the Apache Software Foundation) announced the second release candidate for the soon to be released OpenOffice 4.0.

> The accepted definition of a software fork is a copy of > an existing project that is independently developed. > ... > It doesn't matter which people do or do not work on the > project at this point

Surely if the definition is "independently developed", then which people are developing it is the only thing that matters?

The independently developed (in my mind) is not referring to the people developing it, but rather the fact that the new copy is developed independently of the old project.

As an example, you can have the same set of developers on a new project, but as long as it's a copy of an old project, most people still expect that to be called a fork since the development of that copy is independent of the original.

From what I can tell, OpenOffice is now the successor to IBM's Lotus Symphony (which was previously an OpenOffice fork). IBM donated their code to Apache, so anyone coming from that software can maintain UI elements that LibreOffice does not have.

I would say that Openoffice fills a niche market, that being that it's more permissively licensed than Libreoffice

yeah, Oracle changed the license before releasing to be incompatible with LibreOffice.

Jenkins and Hudson is other misstep. After the hudson fallout which make Jenkins, they gave Hudson to Eclipse to maintain.

It's not really incompatible with LibreOffice. The difference is that you OO.o can't take code from LibreOffice, but code from OO.o can find it's way into LO without any issues.

OpenOffice is now owned by the Apache Software Foundation; don't you think the Apache Software Foundation wanted to be able to release under the Apache License?

Complaining about the license being incompatible is a bit silly; the choice of license by the Apache Software Foundation should not be a surprise.

It's not incompatible, that's just what the shills want you to think.

IMO, the main problem for LibreOffice is not OpenOffice but compatibility with the industry standard. Like it or not, you need to reasonably read and write the MS document formats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com